The image popularly represented by the Catholic press, and by the mainland British (who seem to be forgetting what it means to be British), is that a group of Catholics were protesting against the practise of internment (a perfectly reasonable anti-terrorist measure, one now adopted by most countries around the world in the light of 9/11 - Britain was just ahead of its time, in this regard) by the British state, and, allegedly, were being oh-so-very innocent and peaceful, before being savagely shot at by British Paratroopers with 13 dying as a result.

But you don't need to do very much research to find holes in this point of view. Think about it. This is the British Army we're talking about here. Not the Nazi Party. Not the Bosnian Serbs. The single most glorious military organisation to have trod the earth since the days of Hannibal himself. Does it sound even remotely likely that these tightly-disciplined heroes would have carried ou a massacre? Least of all, on English soil. I think we need to consider the possibility that the whole damn business was invented, that it never happened outside the imagination of some Noraid fund raiser.

For example, I fire open my copy of Encarta, and what do I find? This:

The British Ministry of Defence claimed that the soldiers began to fire only after two sets of high velocity shots were fired at them and a nail bomb was about to be thrown, adding that they "fired only at identified targets-at attacking gunmen and bombers".

Microsoft� Encarta� Reference Library 2002. � 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

So in other words, the MoD of the United kingdom central government (a government that would love nothing more than to hand Ulster back to the Southern Irish) is here seen trying to defend the actions of its soldierly, actions that could give it the perfect excuse to give Ulster away! Surely only a fool could think that the government tried to cover up something it would find highly advantageous.

So, although the Catholics may claim that the 'protestors' were innocent, it is pretty obvious that they weren't. Doubtless, like many Catholics, they were armed and dangerous, and posing a threat. The British Army is highly unlikely to behave in a murderous fashion, and has historically been hailed for its bravery under fire and its ability to cope with pugnacious protestors (see the recent splendid performance of the Paratroopers in Sarajevo. The Belfast Walk of the paratroopers was a reassuring sight for many a journalist there, the same aspic lipped journos who write off anti-British editorials next week).

No, the martial, highly disciplined work ethic of the Briton is well known, it is highly unlikely that they would fire off an emotional outburst when faced with some past Catholics, and when combined with the evidence above from the British government, we can see that it must surely have been the Catholics who fired off that first fateful shot.

But, of course, this explanation is too simplistic. The Southern Irish Catholics who'd come North for the day for a riot must take their share of blame, sure enough. But it is quite obvious where the real responsbility lies; with the people who had propped up the puppet state of the so-called "People's Republic of Southern Ireland" and its "Irish Royal Army" (IRA) for so long.

In the final analysis, Bloody Sunday was the fault of the United States of America, home of the criminal scum thrown out by the British since 1916. By financing the Loyalist protestors at that march, the Americans directly bear the responsibility for provoking the Royal Irish Army, and their hands are redder than those of Hugh O'Neill ever were.

The tragedy of it all has been the reaction of the press and the media, wrapped around the ringed, bejewelled fingers of the Catholics and, disgracefully, trying to create a mythology of innocence betrayed. I'm glad of this opportunity to set the record straight and point the accusing finger of the Red Hand of Ulster right back where it belongs